Posted on 08/05/2003 7:47:07 AM PDT by F_Cohen
Gay Rights And Santa's Elves
By Lowell Phillips
Toogood Reports
August 5, 2003
All sides of the "workers' rights" debate are weighing in on the heretofore unrecognized plight of Santa's Elves. Labor leaders and human rights activists are increasingly speaking out on behalf of the yuletide pixies that have, from time immemorial, been forced to toil in arctic conditions, with primitive equipment, to meet vast production quotas and inflexible deadlines. Added complaints have emerged regarding allegedly discriminatory employment practices. National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy has decried the conspicuous lack of female representation within the elf workforce and Little People of America President Matt Roloff has charged Santa Enterprises Inc. with favoring the altitudinally advantaged in promotions to management positions.
Responding to mounting pressure, the ideological right has expressed "concern." Seeking to reinforce their claim that conservatism is "compassionate," leaders have reiterated the need for "tolerance" and a world community that is "inclusive." While doing so they have cautioned against the temptation to enact quotas, insisting instead that the elfin community be granted "equal access." Republicans have also expressed opposition to government interference in private holiday enterprises.
Perhaps wishing to avoid a political hit from parents of potentially heartbroken children, leaders of the conservative movement have gingerly engaged in the increasingly heated public debate, while refusing to acknowledge the utter stupidity of it all, in that neither Santa nor his elves exist. Cold reality is clearly less important than maintaining a warm public image. The tactic harkens back to the early years of the 21st century, just before their total defeat in "The Great Culture War." Then as now, failure was assured by a reluctance to state the undeniable.
Absurd?
No less so than the ongoing debate on "gay marriage" or the sniveling inability of even the most vilified right-wingers to utter the word "abnormal."
Yeah. Yeah. I know. In this day and age, when the leader of the free world can argue differing interpretations of the word "is," it's common to hear righteously stupid responses like "what's normal?" or "normal for whom?" But quite frankly, if homosexuality is not abnormal, nothing is.
Purported conservatives take part in televised forums and pound out drivel on keyboards, engaging in a debate that is at its core nonsensical. They blather on about a surreptitious "agenda" and discuss the "traditional family" and the "sanctity of marriage," but shrink from declaring that what is at issue is the final and total acceptance of a miswired or misdirected reproductive urge. And in doing so, they unwittingly undermine their own position and aid in advancing the cause of "gay rights."
Even that walking embodiment of intolerance, Sen. Rick Santorum, is unable to produce anything other than well-measured niceties and nebulous oratory. In his recent appearance on Fox News Sunday he succeeded in nothing more than granting an undeserved equal footing to the position of the guest that preceded him, Elizabeth Birch from the deceptively named homosexual advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign.
As with every other alleged opponent of the homosexual rights moment, the very cadence of Santorum's arguments, attempting to establish a position, while going through contortions to appear "nonjudgmental," empowers a social movement that has been frighteningly successful in selling a notion of sex contrary to its irrefutable reality. The perpetual failure to point out the truth is every bit as ludicrous as trying to win a debate on the employment woes of Santa's Elves, while avoiding the reality that they don't exist.
That's right; sex does have a purpose, having nothing whatsoever to do with recreation or some capricious concept like "lifestyle". The function of sex as a mechanism to perpetuate the species is no less clear than that of eating to nourish the body. But ready access to contraceptives, abortion on demand and a growing list of artificial methods of procreation have allowed most to believe that the true function of sex is determined by "preference."
During an exchange on the nationally syndicated "Mitch Albom Show," a spokesman for the Michigan-based gay rights group Triangle Foundation was able to corral a detractor into labeling homosexuality as "abnormal." The fear of being tagged a "homophobe" was readily discernable in his quivering voice. Outrage was the response, along with a declaration of, "It's normal for me!"
Indeed? And if for some reason a person were genetically or environmentally predisposed to try to satisfy their hunger by cramming food in their ear, it alters not a bit the fact that an ear is intended to facilitate hearing.
In a brief call-in appearance of my own shortly thereafter, I pointed out as well as my allotted 30-seconds would allow, the function of sex. The sports writer turned social philosopher, Mr. Albom, quickly cast it aside with the astute observation that if sex were only for reproduction "we wouldn't have Sex In The City." And who could stand up to steel trap thinking like that? What is frightening is that when confronted with reality on the subject, few respond with anything more lucid.
After my unceremonious dismissal, a follow-up caller expressed indignation and disbelief that anyone would suggest a concrete connection between sex and reproduction. "We've evolved beyond that," she claimed. Surely such a mind could conclude that, in a world of deep breathing techniques and scuba gear, we have evolved into amphibians. I would like to have her and a partner reflecting her preference placed in a state of nature and this neo-Darwinian theory put to a test.
There are innumerable arguments against mainstreaming homosexuality, moral, social, and political, but at their foundation lies the truth of what sex is. If one accepts heavenly design or evolution, it changes little in this matter. But unless there is a willingness to embrace the truth and (damn it all) hurt some feelings, we may as well get used to Heather having two mommies, an elves' rights movement, and people sitting at the dinner table with funnels in their ears.
Memo: lump of coal for Lowell Phillips. -S.C.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.